Old school vs new

[mcurcio1989]

I know this is a worn out argument but I also know that it is going to start affecting me a lot. I really don't have much experience in fixed wing general aviation so I cannot speak from that. It seems that the rotax and automotive engine conversions are fairly popular on this forum so I am interested in your input.

My local EAA chapter has some very knowledgeable and experiences individuals but they are very old school when it comes to engines. I greatly respect their opinions but I also know that it is hard for old dogs to learn new tricks. Basically these guys will scoff if you run anything other than lycoming or continental. From what I have seen lycoming and continental are old school, reliable, time tested engines but they are not the future. All the newer kits and slsa's I have seen are coming with rotax or automotive conversions. The airplane I bought has an automotive conversion engine and it is going to be an interesting balancing act to not offend or disrespect the guys at the EAA. I know that they will basically be waiting for my engine to have a major failure so they can say I told you so. I guess I would really like advice for how to deal with this situation.

To me this is no different than the old school no electronics car guys and the new school. People will go on and on about how great a carb is but at the end of the day of the countless engines I have owned I have always had issues with the carburated ones and had to rebuild / clean them regularly. Fuel injected engines just run. Do I understand all the electronics - no, but the world continues to turn regardless of my understanding of how it does so. what I know is that modern engine designs and electronics are reliable and efficient. I DD'd a jeep cj7 for years it was awesome and easy to work on but it broke a lot. My past couple dd's have been bmws which are not noted for reliability but they are even easier to work on and far more reliable. To me this is the same, old school carb guys would look at my bmw and go "oh look at all those electronics, that's a ticking time bomb" but it is far more reliable than an old jeep engine. In the past 60 years there have been incredible advances in engine technology and they are so more reliable and efficient than in the past. It is insane, in my mind, to think that airplane engines should be stuck in the 50's. If that is true than it is a dying sport. There seems to be countless guys on this forum running rotax and automotive conversions and you seem to be very happy with them. Please share how you deal with this kind of situation.

[3Dreaming]

Simply remind them that the "E" in EAA stands for experimental. If people don't experiment then nothing new never comes along. While Lycoming and Continental are both tried and true you have decided to take advantage of the "E" in EAA and try a different engine.

[3Dreaming]

Also remind them when the tried and true Lycoming and continental engine came out that radial and inline engines were the norm. I would bet back then many of the old timers said that these new flat engines will never work out.

[langj]

My advice is to just let it go. There are some people that no matter what you say or do will never change. Your the pilot and aircraft owner who give a bleep what others think. I would look for like minded friends in your EAA chapter if there is none then search else where. Don't let others dictate your airplane choice. I have met plenty who think I am crazy for flying light sport and lots who think I completely lost my mind for wanting to build my own airplane. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion does not mean mine and theirs have to agree.

[MrMorden]

There are different levels of reliability, but we hear all the time about Lycoming and Continental engines breaking rods, cracking cylinders, etc...they are not immune to failure. I'd bet the Rotax 912 when properly maintained is just as reliable as a Ly/Con engine. They all have 2000hr TBOs, and there is no reason they all can't make that and beyond, IF they receive good TLC. Rotax just has way too many 912/914 engines flying for anybody to argue they have not proven themselves.

I have a buddy who has a Rotax 582 (two-stroke) powered airplane. Lots of people hate two-strokes and think they are death traps, but again it's all in the maintenance. My friend is very careful about his engine maintenance. The engine only has a 300hr TBO, and when he recently hit that number he pulled the engine and sent it to Lockwood for a rebuild, even though it was still running fine. He just knows that two-strokes are less forgiving of shoddy maintenance, he behaves accordingly, and he never has major engine problems.

Auto conversions are much the same. VW and Corvair engines used in cars need extra attention in airplanes. Keep an eye on them and keep the maintenance up and they work fine. They are not "turn the key, change the oil, and otherwise forget them" engines like some others are.

[mcurcio1989]

Am not really trying to change their minds so much as just avoid creating a faction or being looked at as a rebellious child. I don't have a fraction of the experience these guys have so I'm very much a newb.

I really like the reminder of what the E in EAA stands for. That is exactly how I feel about it. I want to try this out and this is the best time to try. It's ironic because the one guy mentioned something to me about GA being a dying pastime. Hell yeah its dying when you refuse to let go of 70 year old engine designs. This a is a great group with lots of experienced pilots and builders. I want to have a good relationship with them and I think they have a lot to offer. Among the active members there is one who is really the figurehead. He has some insane number of hours, private as well as flying commercial passenger jets, can build an airplane without thinking about it, and probably has forgotten more than I will ever know about GA. I'm pretty sure his opinions just filter down to the whole group.

I guess the best thing to do is that when they give me shit I can just say hey I'm trying to experiment here

[FastEddieB]

I don't know how typical your EAA experience is.

In my chapter (1211, Blairsville, GA), a significant number of the planes run ROTAX 912's, including my Sky Arrow and several RV's.

We discuss their quirkiness sometimes, but I think the general consensus is that they are at least as reliable overall as more "conventional" powerplants. Most recognize their overall lower maintenance costs. I have never heard them bad mouthed in my group.

BTW, we had a Young Eagles event today, and about 35 lucky youngsters got to experience the thrill of flight, some for the first time. I got to fly four of them. Afterwards, dropped Karen off at Island Home in Knoxville to visit the kids and grandkids.

A terrific day for flying, and nary a bad word about ROTAX, or Light Sport, or, well...anything!

Photos and videos are on Karen's phone. If they came out decently, I'll post some after she gets home Monday.

[snaproll]

It appears time to address the “old dogs” misconceptions voiced by many with regard to the LSA and Rotax engines. Us “old dogs” grew up with Continentals, Franklins, Lycoming’s, Rangers, Menasco’s, Warner’s, Kinner’s, Pratt & Whitney’s, Wrights, and the like. Many of us “old dogs” see value in the Rotax engine, enjoy flying them, and consider it a reliable power plant. Most of us do not consider it “new technology” as it really isn’t. The Rotax is a blend of older technology packaged in a useable form with weight advantages. Lycoming introduced the GO-145 in 1938, a 27-17 gear reduction four cylinder opposed engine, and over the years other Lycoming and Continental engines were produced in a gear reduction version to run the engine at a higher RPM producing more horsepower. Electronic ignition has been around since the 1948 and commercially available since 1963 including as an option on the 1963 Corvette. Dry sump lubrication has been around since the 1930’s with redesigns, multiple Patents, with later Patents by Continental Motors as late as 1956. Liquid cooled heads are also previously used. Rotax engineered an efficient package incorporating many of these “advantages” into a well-built engine. They also learned from the many gear reduction units developed by “Experimenters”, EAA folks” adapting a broad array of automotive engines for aircraft use since the 60’s. Bottom line is don’t count out the “old dogs” and predetermine they are anti-LSA and anti-Rotax. Us “old dogs” see the value in LSA’s and in Rotax engines, can appreciate where they came from, and enjoy flying them as much as the newbies. To most of us, the attraction is the advanced airframes, not the engines.
VR.. Don
EAA Lifetime 43201

[MovingOn]

.......

[3Dreaming]

Don, if you look into Rotax's history I think you will find that they were originally a gearbox company that moved into building engines, at least that is what I remember from my Rotax training class. With their extensive gearbox background I doubt they relied much on gear reduction that was being used in the experimental aircraft world.

[mcurcio1989]

^ I'm not in any way trying to trash talk older guys and their experience. I do agree that Rotax is really not new and I wasn't talking specifically rotax. In my case I am going to be running a automotive conversion that utilizes a suzuki g series engine. Basically I am calling old school the horizonatally opposed, carburated engine with magnetos and new is anything that isn't that.

I think me eaa chapter must be a bit unique. I may be interpreting things wrong but on several occasion I have got the impression of "you'll live to regret buying that, if you live, and come crawling back wanting to run a lycoming or continental". One guy pretty much told me that I'm gonna end up dead if I don't run the old tried and true.

What gets to me is that in the past 70 years engine design has improved exponentially. Modern electronics are incredibly reliable. Engines last longer, produce more power and for less fuel consumption. You cannot expect the GA powerplant industry to keep up with that progress at a cost that will not be prohibitive for sport pilots. Using proven technology and the reliability of mass produced automotive engines just makes sense. When your car breaks down it is very very rare that it is really a result of the mechanical workings of the engine. Most cases it is some auxiliary component. These failures can easily be prevented by redundancy, or preventative maintenance both are which a norm in aviation anyways. Fuel injection systems have far less quirks than carburetors and I would argue that they are far more reliable especially with the standard of fuel filtration in GA. To not attempt to take advantage of huge improvements in reliability, cost, performance, and efficiency is such a waste.

[FastEddieB]

It is very hard to get objective reliability data on aircraft engine reliability. Many engine failures and issues never get reported, not resulting in accidents.

But I can say that over on the Cirrus Owner's website there is much grumbling about problems with the "tried and true" Continental IO550N, and more recently the Tornado Alley Turbo and Continental turbonormalized and turbocharged models.

Lots of cases of engine failures leading to both accidents and CAPS pulls. Oil pressure loss is one bugaboo, but there are also mag and exhaust and starter and fuel issues.

But, again, Cirrus airplanes are flying lots and lots of hours, so it's hard to get a handle on failure rates.

In any case, yes, I think your EAA chapter is an odd duck. From my experience with mine, the EAA magazine, and experiences at both Oshkosh and Sun 'n' Fun, the majority of EAA members seem to be open to new technology, and are often on the leading edge of it.

I would politely listen to what the naysayers are telling you, but in the absence of data, I would not lend it much credence.

[snaproll]

Fast Eddie is right - most don't get reported leaving inaccurate reliability data available. As for the EAA chapters, most support any experimental engine configuration. I still belong to chapter one and have seen any possible engine used from Volkswagen, Chevy, Ford, Subaru, Honda, Dodge, etc. I remember my father flying a Mercury outboard 18HP engine in the 50's just to prove it could be done.. There are many good engines available, and they don't need the Continental or Lycoming label to be reliable.

[drseti]

Flabob really put the E in EAA, Don. But these days, Chapter 1 is atypical. Unfortunately, at many of the younger chapters that E stands for Expensive.

[3Dreaming]

Don, something that might interest you. A few years ago I did a restoration of the old Margret Ritchie Clip wing Taylorcraft. It is still based here at my airport. Now I can tell you without a doubt that it is a fun light sport aircraft, even though it only has one seat.